Energy USED can be sorta correlated in that way. Energy EXPENDED cannot be.

Until now total energy PRODUCTION has been correlated with population. World per capita energy production has continually increased over the last 100 years as billions of poor people attempt to improve their wellbeing. I would hope that this one simple graphic would make it very obvious to even the most adamant green energy proponent why "just leave it in the ground" is not so simple. 3 billion people still survive by burning wood and dung for heat and cooking. They will be the ones that have to change their way of life the least as total per capita access to energy fades back down over the next 100 years.
.
.
.
.
GDP is probably more closely correlated to useful energy CONSUMPTION now that efficiencies from electrification are starting to creep in.

GDP is probably more closely correlated to useful energy CONSUMPTION now that efficiencies from electrification are starting to creep in.

With the emphasis on "useful," yes. The main reason we have seen some energy uses per capita decline of late is due to that effect. When energy is cheap efficiency doesn't matter. When energy gets more expensive, then efficiency does matter - and you can do more with the same amount of (input) energy. That efficiency, of course, has a cost - but the cost (and the work done to effect those efficiencies) has a net economic impact as well, both positive and negative.

Pulling the thread back to things more tangible..
How are those wind turbines and solar farms working out under the Polar Vortex conditions in the Mid West ??
Australias big drive to RE power just gave us rolling "brownouts" , power failures, and $14,000/MWh electricity prices, during our normal summer peak demand periods ! (NOT "record breaking" temperatures either !)

I would love to see you produce an electricity bill showing you paid ~$14/kWh at any point.

I just had an annual summary from my renewable-only electricity company showing my average g/CO2 for the year, and the saving in both price and CO2 for the year compared to the biggest six energy suppliers in the country.

Pulling the thread back to things more tangible..
How are those wind turbines and solar farms working out under the Polar Vortex conditions in the Mid West ??
Australias big drive to RE power just gave us rolling "brownouts" , power failures, and $14,000/MWh electricity prices, during our normal summer peak demand periods ! (NOT "record breaking" temperatures either !)

The temperatures were most certainly record breaking, and the demand for air conditioning power was as expected; market demand for energy at the worst of it saw prices hit the ceiling of $14,000/MWh - a fixed ceiling because the market simply wouldn't put the customer first otherwise. AGL profits enormously from unreliable power events thanks to the market they are allowed to operate in, so they are quite happy to let the generators fail. Several coal fired units were non-operational, others were being serviced (great time of year to be servicing a 400 MW generator )

The energy shortfall was met with hydro and gas. Demand management was also applied in some places. In the end, it highlighted the need for stored, despatchable power. Pumped hydro and behind-the-meter batteries for the win.

Which records do you believewere broken ?
Its true some coal generators were off line, but most of them were the result of being blown up or forced into decommissioning by dumb political motives.
The main cause of the problems was that the wind simply died just when it was needed .
If sombody doesnt wake up soon , it will only be worse as more coal plants are shut down.

I would love to see you produce an electricity bill showing you paid ~$14/kWh at any point.

Yeah, he is misrepresenting the picture as always. Here is a brief explanation from another similar event two years ago :

At DI 10:35, this all converged to a smallish rise in 5 minute Queensland demand leading to a very large jump in dispatch price from $98.94/MWh to $14,000/MWh, as lower price generation offers were fully utilised and AEMO had to dispatch very high priced Queensland generation offers to meet demand – but this did not mean that Queensland was anywhere near running out of generation capacity – just that a relatively large amount of that capacity was offered only at very high prices.

There were many more in SA to go that day. But I'm guessing the BOM is conspiring to exaggerate the data right?

Well if BOM declares it a record, ..then it must be so ! Officially.
But the BOM does not have a good record when it comes to scientific rigor.
They openly admit they have changed ("adjusted") ..invariably downwards....historical records to compensate for changes in equipment and methods, ...not to mention completly removing data recorded prior to 1910.!
...which conveniently removes the widely reported extreme heat events in 1896 from the "hottest day" debate. !..
And how about those 0.1C temp records, taken on equipment with a 1.0C error band ?

.......The Bureau does not calibrate SAT thermometers. Instead their outputs are assumed to be in the relevant temperature scale (Fahrenheit or Celsius) within prescribed tolerance limits. However, the sensors are checked regularly to determine if they are within these tolerance limits. The tolerances for eld checks of either in-glass or resistance thermometers are ±0.5 °C; documents suggest these limits are largely unchanged since the 1900s regardless of the type of thermometer used.

But back to the real point,..a day 0.2 C hotter than the 1949 record ..or even 0.1C from a week previous, does not explain why the grid generation failed to maintain supply...
..that was simply due to insufficient capacity planning and relying on intermittent, unpredictable, generation systems.

I would love to see you produce an electricity bill showing you paid ~$14/kWh at any point.

Yeah, he is misrepresenting the picture as always. Here is a brief explanation from another similar event two years ago :

At DI 10:35, this all converged to a smallish rise in 5 minute Queensland demand leading to a very large jump in dispatch price from $98.94/MWh to $14,000/MWh, as lower price generation offers were fully utilised and AEMO had to dispatch very high priced Queensland generation offers to meet demand – but this did not mean that Queensland was anywhere near running out of generation capacity – just that a relatively large amount of that capacity was offered only at very high prices.

You need to understand how the Au power market operates .
1). Those are instantaneous (5min) wholesale prices paid by the Market Operator to the generation operators
.....those prices will be averaged over time and passed on via the retailers to the consumers as higher consumption costs in the states with supply shortages
2) the shortfall was not huge, a few hundred MW , but due to the market bid system , all suppliers get paid the same highest bid price as the final supplier to fill the shortfall... So all 20+ GW will have been entitled to the $14k /MWh during that market period
Queensland has the lowest generation cost (mostly coal) and a surplus of reliable capacity..as does NSW.
Only those states ..Victoria and South Australia,... who have deliberately shut operational coal plants, and hope to rely on wind/solar...have insufficient reliable capacity and need the back up of other states to keep their lights on.
Some dilusional politicians still believe it is due to unreliable old fossil plants that caused these shortages, but the sad reality is its the dumb , missguided decisions to eliminate functional generating coal plants from the grid supply, with no effective replacement available or planned

The main cause of the problems was that the wind simply died just when it was needed . If sombody doesnt wake up soon , it will only be worse as more coal plants are shut down.

Hopefully someone will wake up soon and make a concerted push for utility scale storage.

Remember, SAustralia has the biggest Tesla Grid battery..and we also have "Australias Battery" ..Tasmania's Hydro system..1.5GW with ???GWh of capacity, but limited by a 600MW interconnector,.. together with another 2 GW of pumped hydro from the Snowy system.
But those are already fully utilised proping up the feeble SA and Victoria generation capacity.
Obviously you are thinking of something much bigger ?

But the BOM does not have a good record when it comes to scientific rigor.
<snip wholly unsubstantiated conspiracy theory about BOM adulterating records>

But back to the real point,..a day 0.2 C hotter than the 1949 record ..or even 0.1C from a week previous, does not explain why the grid generation failed to maintain supply...
..that was simply due to insufficient capacity planning and relying on intermittent, unpredictable, generation systems.

Nobody on this thread has suggested the the power went out in some places because of record-breaking hot days. The power went out because of a shortfall in supply at a time of very high demand.

Just to re-iterate the whole point of this thread and it's thousands of repetitive posts:

1. The world demands electrical energy.
2. Most of this energy comes from finite reserves of coal and gas.
3. Burning coal and gas releases greenhouse gases which contribute to increased atmospheric and ocean temperatures.
4. Higher temperatures leads to more extreme weather events as hot air dissolves more water, and melts once-solid water.
This is bad.
5. But the world still needs energy.
6. Most parts of the world are not replacing coal fired generators because of 3 and 4.
7. Solar photovoltaics and wind are the cheapest source of installed power, but they cannot deliver power all the time.
8. Nuclear is an option for some parts of the world, but it's very expensive and complicated for new builds.
9. Storage is therefore needed - batteries and pumped hydro are good options, but are also expensive.
10. Nobody has the bollocks to make the necessary decisions because it will upset their political base / incumbent players.

So as individuals we can make decisions which lessen the impact of points 1 to 10.

The BOM openly states on their own site that they have made numerous "corrections" adjustments, alterations, and changes, to both historical and current data records.
Some are obviously justified , others very much not so, and unexplainable.
Re your "bullet point" list..
1)...
2)...
3......Unproven theory, unsupported by science and whose predictions have failed to support the theory.
4)...
5)...
6)... Many major countries are actively planning and building coal fired generation
7)... Not if you include the necessary storage and back up generation that is required.
8 )... But likely to become simpler and cheaper in the coming years (MSR's etc)
9)... Required to stabilise the variability of wind and solar generation, but impractical for grid scale power . supply continuity. Few countries have suitable topography for significant PH storage, and batteries are not realistic for large capacity (1000's od GWh ) storage as required for a RE dominant grid generation system.
Fossil back up is the only realistic solution.
10)....

IF climate changes are not due to CAGW, then there is little we can do to alter the effects, ..
... Other than adapt as necessary.

For Australia, few realise it , but the only options to prevent more blackouts, and system failures, is to either enforce much more "Demand Management" (shut down industries and heavy consumers) ...
...or to maintain all existing fossil fueled generation plants and plan to build more in parallel with the future expansion of RE installations..
And be prepared to accept the new technology Nuclear generators.

but due to the market bid system , all suppliers get paid the same highest bid price as the final supplier to fill the shortfall... So all 20+ GW will have been entitled to the $14k /MWh during that market period

Yeah, the primary problem here is clearly a global conspiracy to promote AGW.

but due to the market bid system , all suppliers get paid the same highest bid price as the final supplier to fill the shortfall... So all 20+ GW will have been entitled to the $14k /MWh during that market period

Yeah, the primary problem here is clearly a global conspiracy to promote AGW.

He's one of the holdout deniers who gets his science information for right-wing political sites and conspiracy theory propagandists. I don't think he'll ever admit the truth because his political mindset and world view blocks any contradictory new information.

"...The final 336-page document agreed by the coal commission, seen by the Guardian, shows Germany plans to reduce its 42.6GW of coal power capacity to about 30GW by 2022, falling to around 17GW by 2030. The deal will be formally published next Friday..."

This includes shutting down around 12GW of coal power plants in just 3 years parallel to shutting down the last nukes by 2022.

He's one of the holdout deniers who gets his science information for right-wing political sites and conspiracy theory propagandists. I don't think he'll ever admit the truth because his political mindset and world view blocks any contradictory new information.

Or he could be a professional troll installed here by some fossil fuel giant.

"...The final 336-page document agreed by the coal commission, seen by the Guardian, shows Germany plans to reduce its 42.6GW of coal power capacity to about 30GW by 2022, falling to around 17GW by 2030. The deal will be formally published next Friday..."

This includes shutting down around 12GW of coal power plants in just 3 years parallel to shutting down the last nukes by 2022.

How much total loss from the nukes? What is the plan to replace that much generation in 3 years?

3......Unproven theory, unsupported by science and whose predictions have failed to support the theory.

frock seriously man?

Yep, he's serious.

On another forum a climate change denier posted something in 2004 entitled "there's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1998!" And he STILL believes that. Seriously.

There are a lot of climate change deniers who would suffer serious problems if they ever accepted climate change science. Denial is a form of self protection for many of them; it avoids the crippling mental dissonance they would experience when their near-religious beliefs on the climate collide with reality.